[governance] IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15

Sun Jul 19 08:56:40 EDT 2009

Opinions below in red italic

 Best to all

Vanda Scartezini

POLO Consultores Associados

&  IT Trend

Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8

01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.

Fone + 55 11 3266.6253

Mob + 5511 8181.1464

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:32 PM
To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; Ian Peter; Parminder; Jeanette Hofmann;
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy; William Drake
Subject: [governance] IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15

Hello, all...

We are not going to make the deadline of midnight GMT today, but I have 

asked the Secretariat for an extension, and Markus Kummer has said we 

may have a short extension. Current proposed text follows at the bottom 

with the controversial sections marked with **[ ]

Please opine as soon as possible, trying to give concrete options or 

suggestions for solutions if you can.

I think that Natasha's, Roxana's and Jean-Louis's concerns have already 

been dealt with in the text or below, please re-state if not... sorry if 

I missed something or misinterpreted. Please let me know.

So... correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems that there are four 

areas still under discussion. There may be other points that I did not 

catch.

1)

Q1: **[In this connection, IGF IS STILL TO ACHIEVE ANY CLEAR SUCCESS in 

the area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with 

different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the 

Internet' (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate 

inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under 

their purview' (72 c). ]**

Could we say: (I think this is somewhat stronger than Ian's: IGF "may 

need to extend its efforts in")

**[In this connection, the IGF MUST EXTEND ITS EFFORTS in the area of 

'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different 

cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' 

(section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental 

organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 

c). ]**[Vanda Scartezini] I prefer this statement.IGF must is the strength
we need. 

AND can everyone accept this wording, or suggest another?

**[IGF has also not been able to make any SIGNIFICANT progress towards 

fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders 

in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and 

affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g 

of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making 

recommendations'.

2)

Q2 the issue of rights, particularly:

**[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. 

Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a 

significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of 

voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.]**

Note that the at question 2, the questionnaire itself 

http://igf.wgig.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Fo
rmalConsult032009) 

has a link to the WSIS declaration of principles 

http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html

On that page, the word "rights" appears 8 times in the first 5 articles 

of Section A, and 10 times in section A's 18 articles. I agree with 

Parminder that we leave it in. How can we solve thihs?[Vanda Scartezini]
agree

3)?? How to deal with--leave as is, remove??,

Q6 Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new 

structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more 

tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC 

contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does 

not prove its value to the international community by adopting 

mechanisms for the production of **NON-BINDING** statements on Internet 

public policy issues.]

or change to Bill's suggestion of:

"Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where 

appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the 

requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC 

members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly 

favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of 

recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter have 

colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC believes it 

is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing multistakeholder 

dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever could be appropriate 

and on the possible implications of such negotiations for the IGF's 

unique character."[Vanda Scartezini]  adopting recommendation will be
possible only at local level, the reason I have suggested we have formal &
supported regional IGF meetings. If we just continue with the worldwide one
it will be hard to achieve recommendations that will fit all.

4) Shiva's contribution on funding, where I perceive several options--

(Q6 also)

A) that we use this shortened version:

The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to 

provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be 

used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater 

diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG 

activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for 

example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender.[Vanda
Scartezini]  this short one is clear.

B) or this version, with "unconditional" changed to "that are free from 

censorship or restrictions on content":

The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to 

provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be 

used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater 

diversity of participation.

There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF 

participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly 

qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments, but it is also true 

that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more 

Civil Society participants known for their commitment and 

accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. 

And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all participant 

segments and geographic regions. We mention in particular: Indigenous 

peoples worldwide, people with disabilities, rural people and 

particularly those who are the poorest of

the poor, landless or migrants; those concerned with promoting 

peer-to-peer and open access governance structures built on an 

electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet 

governance as ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and 

limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in 

implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of 

broad-based economic and social development. Funding possibilities need 

to be improved availability of various categories of travel grants for 

participants may help improve attendance by those not yet seen at the 

IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made some funds available for 

representation from Less Developed Countries, but such funding achieves 

a limited objective.

With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that the 

IGF consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from business, 

governments, well funded non-governmental and international 

organizations and the United Nations THAT ARE FREE FROM CENSORSHIP OR 

RESTRICTIONS ON CONTENT. The fund could extend travel grants to 200 lead 

participants (panel speakers, program organizers), full and partial 

fellowships to a greater number of participants with special attention 

to participants from unrepresented categories (unrepresented geographic 

regions and/or unrepresented participant segments and even to those from 

affluent, represented regions if there is an individual need).

Or C: 'funds with no explicit or hidden undue conditionalities' for that 

qualification.

1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in

the Tunis Agenda?

The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically 

set out in para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are 

contained in the preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet 

governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area.

In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its 

way to becoming a unique global forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on 

IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up the on-going 

process of evolutionary innovation evident at each successive IGF 

meeting. To keep up the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is 

important that the IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and 

seek a policy dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue 

helping processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's 

success will be judged by how much it managed to influence these real 

policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of 

success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its mandate, 

but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue structural 

evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy dialogue' on 

'issues that require most

urgent resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and 

processes of real policy making.

**[In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the 

area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different 

cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' 

(section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental 

organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' (72 

c). ]**

**[IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling 

its mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in 

proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and 

affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g 

of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making 

recommendations'. ]

IGF has however, had considerable success in at least three areas:

1. Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin talking 

with each other, and at least start to see the others' point of view, if 

not accept it. This is a very important initial step because it is 

widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance and 

policy models beyond exclusively statist ones.[Vanda Scartezini]  agree

2. Building capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer 

participants, especially from developing countries with under-developed 

institutional and expertise systems in IG arena.

3. Triggering regional and national initiatives for multi-stakeholder 

dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible interactivity between the 

global IGF and these national and regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying 

this innovation in a relatively formal way).[Vanda Scartezini]  very few in
this area, reason I have suggested regional formal IGF meetings ( we are
just a few people around the world dealing with this). We need much more
involvement.

Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public 

policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to 

foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and 

development of the Internet.

There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. 

The participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, 

even the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is 

taking place. The continued interest in workshops is an indication that 

this process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that 

discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, 

particularly in areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have 

not been adequately addressed.

The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder 

processes at the national, regional. level" similar to the IGF. As 

already noted, some national and regional processes are already taking 

shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish 

formal relationships with these initiatives, including

through IGF Remote Hubs.[Vanda Scartezini]  AGREE!

2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?

The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes "should be 

multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of 

governments, the private sector, civil society and international 

organizations." WSIS principles also state that IG "should ensure an 

equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and 

ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into 

account multilingualism". Governments invoked these principles 

throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF 

to, "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS 

principles in Internet Governance processes." Nevertheless, the IGF has 

not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of 

its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated 

programmatic activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss 

government's statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should 

be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions.[Vanda
Scartezini]  Agree

We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of 

those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis 

Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards a 

code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - 

Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a 

building block for such an effort. .[Vanda Scartezini]  Agree

**[A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights. 

Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a 

significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of 

voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.]**

The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of 

openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize 

the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet 

governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access 

the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with 

current debates regarding an "open Internet", and relevant aspects of

the often confusing network neutrality discussions. .[Vanda Scartezini]
Agree

The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of 

the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. 

Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should 

govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.

3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has 

it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it 

acted as a catalyst for change?

The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level of 

discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is observed 

that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than there was 

during WSIS, as well as less confrontation. Due to the request by the 

IGF Secretariat to merge proposals, there are now workshops and panels 

that include business, government, academia and civil society working 

together and exchanging ideas on various levels.

The impact of the IGF can also be seen on a deeper level. If the 

question is posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF 

on participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or 

organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which in 

turn is being shared with, and influences the respective stakeholder 

groups.

In fact, one might also ask different questions such as "Has your 

involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? "Has 

your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that has 

assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the 

multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any 

particular governance issues?" to understand the extended impact of the 

IGF.[Vanda Scartezini]  this paragraph is very good

The Internet Governance Forum is also improving mutual understanding and 

perceptions in all directions. During the preparatory phase as well as 

during the first three IGFs, governments have had an opportunity to 

experience the multi-stakeholder participatory process of the IGF and 

many are becoming comfortable with this process of consultation. This 

'roundtable' equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process 

promotes trust in the functionality of the participatory governance 

process and this will have other and potentially widespread impact.

4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for 

it, including the functioning of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group 

(MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?

****Membership of the MAG**

.Civil society continues to be underrepresented in the multi-stakeholder 

advisory group, and this situation should be remedied. Fair civil 

society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new 

experiment in global governance.[Vanda Scartezini]  agree

. We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet 

administration and the development of Internet-related technical 

standards should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their 

representation should not be at the expense of civil society participation.

. When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure

diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, groups 

with specialneeds or interests in the context of Internet Governance.[Vanda
Scartezini] agree

****Role and Structure of the MAG**

With the experience of four years of the IGF, it is also the right time 

to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. To start with, it will 

be useful to list out the functions that MAG is expected to perform.

. One function is of course, to make all necessary arrangements for the 

annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out 

this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the 

effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its 

decision-making processes to make them more effective. These are 

especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more than what 

it is today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of its mandate. A MAG 

that is little more than a program committee will not effectively 

advance the cause of internet governance or the fulfillment of the WSIS 

mandate.

. It would be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups 

(WGs). These WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of 

workshops connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for 

managing internal tasks of the MAG more effectively.

. MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should 

mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant 

parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline 

plans for the year ahead. We suggest that this report, once adopted by 

the Secretary General, would also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 

75 of the Tunis Agenda and provide necessary background for the 

discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum beyond 2010.

. IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, which 

should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be drawn up 

for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a need is 

also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda.

****Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation**

The United Nations needs to recognize that the IGF is the outcome of a 

UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to fulfill
its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express our great
respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF Secretariat. 

While severely under-funded it has still been responsible for much of 

the success of the IGF to date. The Secretariat should be provided with 

the resources it needs to perform its role effectively.[Vanda Scartezini]
right

In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation 

of those from civil society in developing and least developed countries 

with perspectives and experience contributory to the effective conduct 

of the discussions in the IGF annual meetings and the IGF preparatory 

consultations.

****Special Advisors and Chair**

The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for 

their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as 

mentioned above in the case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind 

for the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors 

should be kept within a reasonable limit.[Vanda Scartezini] OK

5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year

mandate, and why/why not?

The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should 

continue beyond its first mandated period of five years.

Two key elements of the mandate are first, as a forum for 

multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity 

building. Both aspects of the IGF's role need to be strengthened and to 

be recognized as being co-equal in terms of emphasis and measures to 

improve effectiveness.

It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are 

in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Arguably, the more 

controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to 

the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought.

Deliberations at the IGF can be seen as providing inputs for global 

Internet policy making, which will in turn help to make policy-making 

processes more participative and democratic.

We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work. However for 

this success to be built on, the IGF should be assured stable funding 

from publicly accountable sources sufficient to carry on its functions 

effectively and impartially in the global public interest. To this end 

we believe it is important that there be the involvement of no other UN 

organization in the IGF's management.[Vanda Scartezini]  agree

6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements

would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and

processes?

We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In addition, 

we submit:

The IGC believes that the review should focus on addressing issues where 

the IGF might be improved, and particularly the area of more inclusive 

participation. In this instance we suggest a review of the current 

operational processes to identify ways for more active inclusion of 

rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to, 

remote participation including transcription and archiving.

And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13: "In building the 

Information Society, we shall pay particular attention to the special 

needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society, including 

migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees,

unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people. We 

shall also recognize the special needs of older persons and persons with 

disabilities." We include in particular, Indigenous peoples worldwide, 

rural people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and 

often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to peer 

and open access governance structures built on an electronic platform, 

those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as ways of 

responding to specific localized opportunities and limitations, and 

those working as practitioners and activists in implementing the 

Internet as a primary resource in support of broad based economic and 

social development.

This requires a willingness to reconsider the current structures and 

processes that may have seemed necessary at the time of the IGF's 

inception but which may now be reconsidered in light of current 

practices, technology support opportunities, changed international 

financial and environmental conditions and so on. For example, it may be 

appropriate for the Internet Governance Forum to be reconceived from a 

single face-to-face meeting. Rather, the IGF might consider how other 

Internet governance

institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, conduct their work and 

engagement between meetings in online and regional fora, and for which 

global face-to-face meetings are a capstone for the work done elsewhere 

rather than the single element in the process.

Specifically, the IGC considers that the location for meetings should 

more clearly

support participation by individuals and organizations with few 

resources and thus accessibility, airline competition and routing 

options, and city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into 

consideration as well in this process. As well, final meeting dates and 

sites should be announced 360 days in advance to allow for budgeting and 

advanced planning, and to ensure equitable access to transport, food and 

lodging that is competitive and convenient.

The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the 

support of the IGF - are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, 

in a regional/ local level of the mission of the IGF and these should be 

complemented by more formal support and structured inclusion from the 

Remote Hubs through the annual IGF meeting.

[Vanda Scartezini]  till here I am in full agreement with the point 6
response.

**[Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new 

structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce more 

tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation. The IGC 

contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the long term it does 

not prove its value to the international community by adopting 

mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements on Internet 

public policy issues.]

**[The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to 

provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be 

used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater 

diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG 

activities with the broader range of civil society concerns in for 

example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and gender.][Vanda
Scartezini]   ( here this statement sound better than above)

7. Do you have any other comments?

The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat 

introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text 

transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research 

resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare 

consensus/stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions.[Vanda Scartezini]
good one.

____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

     governance at lists.cpsr.org

To be removed from the list, send any message to:

     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:

     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090719/3f54ab30/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance